ArticleWorld journal of surgery2017
Single-Incision and Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery in Switzerland.
Article in World journal of surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Does a prior hysterectomy complicate transvaginal/transumbilical hybrid NOTES cholecystectomy?-a comparative analysis of prospectively collected data.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2022Article
- Transvaginal hybrid-NOTES vs. traditional laparoscopic sigmoid resection for diverticulitis: a short-term comparative study.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Laparoscopic-Assisted Transvaginal Cholecystectomy - the US Military Experience With Long-Term Follow Up.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSingle-incision laparoscopy (SIL) and natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) aim at reducing surgical access trauma. To monitor the introduction of emerging technologies, the Swiss Association for Laparo- and Thoracoscopic Surgeons launched a database in 2010. The current status of SIL and NOTES in Switzerland is reported, and the techniques are compared.
methodsThe number and type of procedures, surgeon experience, their impressions of performance, conversion, and complications between 2010 and 2015 are described. A survey was used to acquire additional data not included in the registry.
resultsNine centers included 650 procedures. Cholecystectomy (55 %) and sigmoidectomy (26 %) were most prevalent in both techniques. The number of active centers declined from 9 to 2 during the study period. The frequencies of taught procedures were 4 and 43 % for SIL and NOTES (p < 0.001), and surgeon self-estimated impression of performance was perfect in 50 and 89 %, respectively (p < 0.0001). Conversions in total were 3.6 and 5.7 %, respectively, and 1.1 % to open for both techniques. Morbidity was 5 % in SIL and 2.7 % in NOTES, with 0.8 % access-related complications in NOTES and none in SIL (p = 0.29). Of laparoscopic cholecystectomy, sigmoidectomy, and right hemicolectomy, 11.4 and 15.6 % of cases were operated using SIL or NOTES, respectively (p < 0.0001).
conclusionsAlthough in selected specialized centers, a considerable proportion of patients were treated using novel techniques, a fading interest of the surgical community in SIL and NOTES was observed. The proportion of SIL and NOTES procedures taught is insufficient and calls for improvement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27671014What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.